Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination

Darm exercise 4

Tasks:

• Make pairs and select one group A-E (D and E have Finnish material).
• Look at page Discussion for theoretical and practical advice. Also page op_fi:Keskustelun jälkijäsentäminen may be useful.
• Look at the two or three links on your group's page.
• Read the texts and try to identify arguments about the use of Pandemrix. Note that arguments can be (and most are) indirect arguments.
• Rewrite the arguments in such a way that they can be understood outside the original context.
• Place the arguments into a hierarchical tree of attacking and defending arguments pointing toward the main statement about Pandemrix use.
• You can also make up your own arguments, or if you have extra time, read additional material (see end of the page).
• When each group has done their own part, there will be a general discussion about all argumentations by the groups. All argumentations will be merged onto this page based on the discussion.
• Think: How many readers do you need to make this extra effort of collecting, organising and synthesising information and opinions a worthwhile activity of social learning?

Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high. Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--1: . Despite risks, Pandemrix is an effective vaccine and has clearly net positive effects in countries where emergency treatment is poorly available for severe swine flu cases. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--2: . The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--3: . In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [1] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--6: . The vaccination used last year will most likely protect also against the possible swine flu epidemic of this year, although the virus has changed a bit. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:57, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [2] (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--7: . Vaccination is a very good method of preventing swine flu infections. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:59, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [3] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--4: . The side effects of Pandemrix have been accentuated, although the benefits are much more significant. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:50, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [4] (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--5: . Nursing staff in hospitals should be vaccinated; it is their responsibility as medical professionals. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:54, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [5] (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Discussion groups:

• Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group A
• Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group B
• Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group C
• Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group D (Finnish material)
• Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group E (Finnish material)

Additional material:

• File:Swine flu story.ppt
• Decision analysis and risk management#See also